You are a young person in college or recently graduated and
you plan to vote for President Obama.
Why?
The answer you give is likely to include one or more of the
following:
·
Obama believes in helping people – the poor, the
elderly, even college students.
·
Obama will fight for the average American
against the interests of business.
·
Obama believes in reconciling American foreign
policy interests with countries typically hostile to America.
·
Obama supports gay marriage and a woman’s right
to choose.
·
Obama is supported by people that I respect
including entertainers and college professors.
Implicit in the statements above is that your other choice -
Mitt Romney - either believes the opposite or is much less concerned with these
issues. Therefore, your support of Obama
is grounded in a set of values and policies that seemingly align with your own.
But what if things were not this simple? For example, what
if Mitt Romney’s views were not entirely antithetical to your own? And what if
there were flaws in either Obama’s views or actions with respect to these
issues?
Let’s face it.
Everyone expects you to vote for Obama. But if you heard a different set
of arguments would you be willing to do something really radical and vote for
Romney? Well let’s look at the statements above in a new light.
Obama believes in
helping people – the poor, the elderly, even college students
A popular characterization of Republicans like Mitt Romney
in some areas of the media is that they lack compassion for others. Democrats
are perceived as more inclined to lend a hand to those in need. Hence – the
story goes – Republicans are not compassionate because they want to cut social
welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) while Democrats are
compassionate because they want to preserve them.
Before looking at spending on aid to others through a
political lens, let’s first look at how Republicans and Democrats behave personally when it comes to giving:
The
nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers: The eight
states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John
McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states
supported Barack Obama. (The Politics of Giving, The Chronicle of Philanthropy,
August 19, 2012)
By at least one measure, Republicans might be viewed as more
charitable (more compassionate?) than Democrats. Surprised?
Next let’s look at the charitable giving of Mitt Romney,
President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden:
Romney
and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011,
donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.
Obama
and first lady Michelle Obama gave 21.8 percent of their income to charitable
organizations last year, donating $172,130 out of the $789,674 they made.
Biden
and his wife, Jill, gave 1.5 percent of their income away in 2011, with
charitable donations totaling $5,540 out of $379,035.
The
Bidens have been notably tight with their money when it comes to charitable
giving. In 2008, it was revealed that from 1998 to 2006, the couple never gave
more than $400. (POLITICO.com, September/22/2012)
Certainly Mitt Romney could never be fairly characterized as
someone who is uncaring. So why is there
a perception that Republicans don’t care and Democrats do?
This brings us back to the politics of social welfare programs. These arguments are detailed
and would require a separate discussion.
However, a fair summary of the Republican position would state that no
Republican would want to dismantle these programs. Republicans believe that – as currently
structured – Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable. This means that as the population of America
ages these entitlement programs will require an ever-increasing level of
funding. The funding will come from taxes collected by the government from
people in the work force.
This is, or will shortly be, you!
While your compassionate side may readily believe that these
taxes are fair and necessary, what would you say if they escalated year after
year? What would you say if every annual raise you received went
toward higher taxes? How would you be
able to get ahead in life?
Republicans have proposed various changes to these programs
intended to make them viable for years to come.
These changes do not rely upon ever higher taxes and, yes, they do
require a bit more from the people who benefit from these programs (which will
one day include you!)
To summarize, in their
private lives Republicans like Mitt Romney have demonstrated greater levels of
charitable giving than many Democrats.
In the political arena, Republicans do not want to eliminate social
welfare programs, only to fix their inherent flaws.
Obama will fight
for the average American against the interests of business.
What do Warren Buffett, Jon Corzine and Peter Lewis have in common? If you said that they are all current or
former CEOs of major corporations (Buffett – Berkshire Hathaway, Corzine –
Goldman Sachs, Lewis – Progressive Insurance) you would be only half
right. In fact, all are CEOs that have
either publicly or through their political donations identified with the
Democrat Party. Yes, these titans of
industry are not Republicans! And they are not alone. How can that be given that you have likely
heard in endless repetition that the Republican Party is the party of ‘Big
Business?’
In fact, the largest corporate contributor to candidate
Obama’s 2008 campaign was Goldman Sachs.
What gives?
Well, it turns out that there are just as many businesses
and businessman that identify as Democrats, as there are that identify as
Republicans. It is a canard to say that
the Republican Party is the party of business and that Republicans favor the
interests of business over the common citizen.
The fact of the matter is that many of you will end up – believe it or
not – working for a medium or large-sized corporation. (Job hunting tip: that’s where many of the
jobs are!)
By the way, part of the argument against Mitt Romney is that he is a ‘rich’ businessman who does not
identify with the average person. It is
hard to say what is in Mitt Romney’s heart when it comes to the common man, but
you should consider that the Democrats making this argument are the same ones
who, in 2004, supported the candidacy of John Kerry and John Edwards, two
enormously wealthy individuals. Kerry’s
net worth is estimated at $240 million and Edwards’ net worth at $45 million.[1] Perhaps
we can agree that just because someone is wealthy, it does not mean that they
cannot be an effective president!
To summarize, many
corporations and many business executives support the Democrat Party. Businesses create jobs, pay taxes and provide
goods and services that you want. They
are an integral part of the fabric of American society; however, tempting it is
for politicians to vilify them.
There are wealthy
politicians in both parties.
Obama believes in
reconciling American foreign policy interests with countries typically hostile
to America.
President Obama came into office promising to ‘push the reset button’ with respect to
American foreign policy. After years of
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the deaths of thousands of U.S. servicemen and
women, and the seeming continuation of hostility from countries in the Middle
East during the Bush presidency, a ‘reset button’ certainly sounded both timely
and welcome.
Yet just within the past weeks we have seen a U.S.
ambassador killed in Libya and the never-ending scenes of angry Muslims burning
American flags in the streets. In other
areas of the world, we see defiance from Iran toward the U.S. and
non-cooperation from Russia.
What happen to Obama’s foreign policy reset?
Here is the geo-political lesson for young people that you
will not get from your college professors.
The simple fact is that the world is a dangerous place. Most often, countries act in their
self-interest and not in the greater interests of some idealized ‘human
family.’ The French act in the interests
of France and the Russians act in the interests of Russia. Muslims act first in the interests of Islam
and second in the interests of their native country. Alliances bring together countries with
similar concerns (e.g. security, trade), but country trumps alliances.
Further, President Obama’s attempts to extend an olive
branch to nations traditionally hostile to the U.S. are not perceived by these
countries as conciliatory. Quite the
opposite, such actions are perceived as a sign of American weakness. Notwithstanding a couple of thousand years of
civilization, the world continues to be one in which tribal interests – now
defined as ‘national’ interests – predominate.
If you do not believe that this is true, first ask yourself why Obama’s
outreach to the world has not succeeded.
If you believe that Obama’s strategy can be successful,
study the outcomes the last time that U.S. foreign policy adopted the approach
used by Obama. The president at the time
was Jimmy Carter and the results were equally disastrous for American
interests.
To summarize, however
appealing President Obama’s policy of reconciliation with traditionally hostile
foreign interests may be, it has not been successful. The rest of the world respects strength.
Obama supports gay
marriage and a woman’s right to choose.
Perhaps your support of Obama comes from his similar views
on social issues that are important to you.
Obama supports gay marriage and so do you. Mitt Romney does not. But during the 2008 campaign and until just a
couple of months ago President Obama opposed gay marriage. So was he wrong then and right now or vice
versa? Was Obama a bigot or a homophobe
prior to his very recent change of heart?
Did you support Obama in 2008 notwithstanding his opposition to gay
marriage?
Likewise, Mitt Romney once supported abortion. Today he opposes it. Was Romney right before and wrong now or vice
versa? Did he ‘flip-flop’ like Obama did
on the gay marriage issue? Or is it
possible that the current positions of Obama and Romney are the result of
principled changes of heart on difficult issues?
Republicans are typically viewed as the party that is
opposed to gay marriage and abortion while Democrats are portrayed as the party
in favor of both. But did you know that
there are significant percentages of Democrats who are pro-life?
Almost one-third of all Democrats
self-identify as pro-life. In the 2008 Election, about one-quarter of
Obama’s supporters self-identified as pro-life. (www.democratsforlife.org)
Similarly, did you know that a significant percentage of African-Americans
(97% of whom voted for President Obama) actually oppose gay marriage?
Overall, African-Americans
remain one of the groups most opposed to gay marriage: 51 percent are opposed,
while 40 percent support it, according to a recent poll by the Pew Forum on
Religion & Public Life. (Washington Post, August 7, 2012)
Importantly, will you make your decision on who to vote for
based upon a single issue or on your analysis of the totality of the
candidate’s views?
To summarize, social
views are not so easy defined along party lines as you may have been led to
believe. There is a divergence of
opinion up to and including outright disagreement within each party. Each has
room for supporters who do not agree with each other. Further, your own views on various social
issues may very well change over time.
Just ask someone older!
Obama is supported
by people that I respect including entertainers and college professors.
When someone we admire holds the same position that we do on
a particular issue, our own view is reinforced and we naturally feel
justification. If an actor or musician
comes out in favor of Obama, it binds us more closely to them. If we think Jay-Z is cool and he thinks Obama
is cool, then we might think Obama is cool.
But understand this: the entertainment industry is arguably
the place with the least diversity in America, at least when it comes to political
views. There are social and cultural
reasons for this which we do not need to discuss here. However, it is largely
self-evident that the arts tend to attract people who are more liberal in their
views. It is rare to find a Republican
there just as it may be rare to find a Republican in your circle of
acquaintances. The pressure to conform
to the opinion of the group then becomes enormous. Importantly, within non-ideologically diverse
groups you tend not to hear the other side of an argument and on the rare
occasions that you do, it sounds either foreign or laughable. Republicans
give more to charity than Democrats? That’s crazy!
This essay is intended to get you thinking about that other side in a
way that you may not have done so before.
And just to make the obvious point, Jay-Z may be the best
rapper around, but he is not an expert on politics. He is more than entitled to his political
beliefs, but understand that those beliefs are not necessarily grounded in deep
analysis of the issues.
But what about college professors? They are older and more educated and they
seemingly support Obama.
Yes, they are older and more educated, but like the
entertainment industry, there is a decided lack of political diversity among
educators. Consider the following:
By their own description, 72
percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and
15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The
imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the
faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as
Republicans.
The disparity is even more
pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent
of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative. (Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, March 29,
2005)
The education profession clearly attracts more people who
identify as liberals and so, inevitably, college students will be exposed more
to one specific viewpoint. Yet even
liberal professors would have to agree that it would be wrong not to hear or
read an opposing opinion. Too often
young people are not encouraged to seek out the other side. If they did, they might realize that
Republicans are not the villains that that they have been led to believe. And Mitt Romney may begin to look like a much
more reasonable candidate.
To summarize, the
entertainment and education professions are overwhelmingly populated by people
who hold liberal political beliefs.
Young people should seek out opposing political views, if for no other
reason than to be better informed. No
matter what side you are on, you cannot properly defend it if you do not
understand the other side.
[1] www.cnbc.com.
Other wealthy Democrat candidates for president include Bill and Hillary
Clinton ($85 million) and Al Gore ($100 million).
No comments:
Post a Comment